Taken for a Ride -Jim Klein, 1996 What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film asserts that America's prewar mass transit systems were deliberately dismantled and disinvested in with the collusion of the new automobile, oil, and roadbuilding industries. It also argues that this deliberate destruction of America's mass transit has led to an extreme (but specifically planned) automobile dependency that has become so ingrained that it is difficult to establish new transit systems. Even today, the film argues, there is deliberate underinvestment in mass transit to force as many people as possible to be car dependent.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political?
The auto and roadbuilding industry exert a powerful lobbying influence on America's politicians - they were the primary drivers behind the interstate highway system and continue to push for the expensive expansion of the interstate highway system.
Legal?
The film shows us how lawmakers from all types of government agencies - from municipalities to the federal government - have been bribed and unethically influenced to promote automobile ownership over mass transit.
Economic?
There was constant propaganda that streetcar systems were inefficient and uneconomic compared to the new buses that were being forced upon the cities. At a time when cities and private transit operators were strapped for cash, it actually didn't make sense for them to abandon their existing infrastructure (which they had sunk so much money into years ago) and invest in a totally new infrastructure, but it was done anyway, further promoting the insolvency of mass transit and forcing even more people to use automobiles.
Technological?
Buses were promoted as technologically superior to the "quaint" streetcars even though most people disliked them - they were dirty, smoky, and noisy. Admittedly the electricity used to power the streetcars was dirty coal as well, but since the electricity was generated at a single location the streetcars themselves were quiet and clean. Today many cities see light rail as the future - how ironic that almost every American city of a population of 10,000 or greater already had "futuristic" light rail before WWII.
Media and informational?
Snell cites an excellent example where the media were used as a propaganda device to promote motorization over electric transit - after GM bought and dismantled New York's streetcar system it published ads in the magazines to praise the "motorization" of the city (the streetcars were replaced with GM buses). The point of this ad was to show other cities that if buses could work in New York, they could work in any other city.
Organizational?
There was resistance to replacing streetcars with buses - unlike the streetcars, buses were noisy, smelly, and slow. Thus GM and other conspirators had to use NCL (National City Lines) to aggressively and methodically push for bus motorization in city after city.
Educational?
Cities across the country hosted numerous forums on the eve of streetcar abandonment - locals expressed their disapproval with the proposed dismantling of streetcars but pro-automobile groups sent representatives to the various meetings to "educate" the disgruntled public on the supposed benefits and improvements in the new buses slated to replace the streetcars.
Behavioral?
The film showed us how service cuts could influence rider behavior and impressions over mass transit. In their constant attempts to dismantle mass transit, operators would increase the time between trains from 5 minutes to 10, from 10 to 20, from 20 to 30 minutes, and so on. As streetcars became more inconvenient and sparse, the system as a whole became more inconvenient, leaving riders with the impression that the system was decaying and becoming more impractical, thereby forcing even more people to flee to buses and cars.
Cultural?
Mayor of San Francisco Joseph Alioto argued that an intense highway culture emerged to the point that engineers and developers would promote highway development over absolutely everything else: "That highway crowd, if you gave them a chance, they would put a freeway right through the Vatican if they figured by doing that they would save a little space or save a little mileage."
Ecological?
The transition to extreme automobile dependency resulted in an equally extreme amount of pollution in urban areas - vast clouds of smog and automobile emissions led to health problems (especially things like asthma among children) and a noticeable degradation in the quality of city life.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The testimony of transit workers (particularly those in Philadelphia) in which they discussed how their supervisors forced them to disinvest in and reduce service on streetcar lines was particularly powerful - it shows us that people are often forced into doing things they find morally questionable but often have no recourse for effective resistance.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I don't agree that GM and the roadbuilding lobby should be fully blamed for the decline of the streetcar. Even in cities where GM never bought out and dismantled the streetcar network the systems were already in decline - people were abandoning the streetcars in droves for automobiles. Many systems were also grossly mismanaged and federal law unintentionally weakened the systems as well (electric companies often built and owned streetcar companies and sold them cheap electricity but antitrust laws forced the utilities to divest from the streetcar systems).
What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
It would be interesting to examine just what exactly the general public was thinking as they saw the streetcar systems being dismantled. It is easy for us to view streetcars in a nostalgic light now and lament their loss, but perhaps the public was not so concerned at the time, especially if they were preoccupied with buying automobiles. Yes, there are anecdotal stories of people protesting the dismantling of streetcars (particularly in LA) but we don't know if this disapproval was truly widespread or not.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The film opens with scenes of frustrated Americans stuck in traffic and implies that the American traffic situation was not always so dysfunctional. Thus the film is directed at the average American commuter who may be wondering why exactly they are stuck in a system of mandatory motoring. Many American commuters - told by their grandparents that the US once had a brilliant, comprehensive streetcar system - probably wonder what ever happened to that system and why we have become so dependent on cars. This film attempts to enlighten viewers as to what exactly happened with mass transit in the US and attempts to convince viewers to lobby more aggressively for mass transit. The scenarios depicted in the film are often so outrageous that they might actually provoke viewers into militating for improved mass transit.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film encourages us to lobby more aggressively for mass transit systems and shows a few success stories (Baltimore) where positive results were achieved thanks to citizen action. The film argues that we need to emphasize intermodal transit in urban construction - urban transportation networks need to give equal access to pedestrians, bicyclists, light rail, heavy rail, buses, and automobiles and not favor one mode of transport over another.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Does the film convey different perspectives on the issues?
Yes, it even gives time to a ridiculous proposal made by the Intelligent Vehicle Highway Society to solve traffic congestion and reduced highway speed by automating cars and highways - that is, using computers to control chains of cars traveling along specialized highways. What an utterly stupid idea! We already have a proven system of moving "chains of cars" along transit corridors - they're called RAILROADS! The film appropriately dismisses this system as being too expensive and requiring too many unproven technologies.
Is it overly “balanced”?
No, the film very clearly promotes the position that automobile and oil companies colluded to dismantle our mass transit systems.
Does it enhance scientific literacy? If so, what kind of scientific literacy is promoted?
The film does not delve into the specifics of mass transit operation except to emphasize that whenever you increase the time between trains you make the system less desirable and practical - a lesson we still haven't learned in the US where most of our systems operate on a half-hourly or hourly basis whereas European systems operate on 5 or 10 minute headways.
Does it enroll viewers, or preach at them?
The arguments are very engaging without resorting to excessive lecturing and posturing.
Does it include images or examples that are likely to stick with viewers?
Yes, especially the scenes where large batches of scrapped streetcars are set on fire, the vintage footage of LA's stellar and comprehensive streetcar network, the aerial views of suburban sprawl, etc.
Taken for a Ride - Jim Klein, 1996
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film asserts that America's prewar mass transit systems were deliberately dismantled and disinvested in with the collusion of the new automobile, oil, and roadbuilding industries. It also argues that this deliberate destruction of America's mass transit has led to an extreme (but specifically planned) automobile dependency that has become so ingrained that it is difficult to establish new transit systems. Even today, the film argues, there is deliberate underinvestment in mass transit to force as many people as possible to be car dependent.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The testimony of transit workers (particularly those in Philadelphia) in which they discussed how their supervisors forced them to disinvest in and reduce service on streetcar lines was particularly powerful - it shows us that people are often forced into doing things they find morally questionable but often have no recourse for effective resistance.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I don't agree that GM and the roadbuilding lobby should be fully blamed for the decline of the streetcar. Even in cities where GM never bought out and dismantled the streetcar network the systems were already in decline - people were abandoning the streetcars in droves for automobiles. Many systems were also grossly mismanaged and federal law unintentionally weakened the systems as well (electric companies often built and owned streetcar companies and sold them cheap electricity but antitrust laws forced the utilities to divest from the streetcar systems).
What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
It would be interesting to examine just what exactly the general public was thinking as they saw the streetcar systems being dismantled. It is easy for us to view streetcars in a nostalgic light now and lament their loss, but perhaps the public was not so concerned at the time, especially if they were preoccupied with buying automobiles. Yes, there are anecdotal stories of people protesting the dismantling of streetcars (particularly in LA) but we don't know if this disapproval was truly widespread or not.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The film opens with scenes of frustrated Americans stuck in traffic and implies that the American traffic situation was not always so dysfunctional. Thus the film is directed at the average American commuter who may be wondering why exactly they are stuck in a system of mandatory motoring. Many American commuters - told by their grandparents that the US once had a brilliant, comprehensive streetcar system - probably wonder what ever happened to that system and why we have become so dependent on cars. This film attempts to enlighten viewers as to what exactly happened with mass transit in the US and attempts to convince viewers to lobby more aggressively for mass transit. The scenarios depicted in the film are often so outrageous that they might actually provoke viewers into militating for improved mass transit.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film encourages us to lobby more aggressively for mass transit systems and shows a few success stories (Baltimore) where positive results were achieved thanks to citizen action. The film argues that we need to emphasize intermodal transit in urban construction - urban transportation networks need to give equal access to pedestrians, bicyclists, light rail, heavy rail, buses, and automobiles and not favor one mode of transport over another.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
- Does the film convey different perspectives on the issues?
- Yes, it even gives time to a ridiculous proposal made by the Intelligent Vehicle Highway Society to solve traffic congestion and reduced highway speed by automating cars and highways - that is, using computers to control chains of cars traveling along specialized highways. What an utterly stupid idea! We already have a proven system of moving "chains of cars" along transit corridors - they're called RAILROADS! The film appropriately dismisses this system as being too expensive and requiring too many unproven technologies.
- Is it overly “balanced”?
- No, the film very clearly promotes the position that automobile and oil companies colluded to dismantle our mass transit systems.
- Does it enhance scientific literacy? If so, what kind of scientific literacy is promoted?
- The film does not delve into the specifics of mass transit operation except to emphasize that whenever you increase the time between trains you make the system less desirable and practical - a lesson we still haven't learned in the US where most of our systems operate on a half-hourly or hourly basis whereas European systems operate on 5 or 10 minute headways.
- Does it enroll viewers, or preach at them?
- The arguments are very engaging without resorting to excessive lecturing and posturing.
- Does it include images or examples that are likely to stick with viewers?
- Yes, especially the scenes where large batches of scrapped streetcars are set on fire, the vintage footage of LA's stellar and comprehensive streetcar network, the aerial views of suburban sprawl, etc.
.< Back to my portfolio